Bhavika Pala Vs C.C. Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
The CESTAT Ahmedabad (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) in the case of Bhavika Pala Vs C.C. Ahmedabad has ruled that it possesses the jurisdiction to hear appeals concerning the seizure of foreign currency, distinguishing currency from “baggage.” This was established by overruling an initial objection, citing the Tribunal’s Principal Bench decision in Pawan Munjal vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2024), which held that the term “currency” in the Baggage Rules and the definition of “goods” in the Customs Act, 1962, excludes foreign currency, thus confirming CESTAT’s jurisdiction.
The central issue in this appeal was the seizure of foreign currency from a family traveling internationally, where the quantity allegedly exceeded permissible limits. The appellant’s counsel contended that the seized currency belonged to more than one family member and should be assessed accordingly, even if carried by one or two persons.
The Tribunal took note of the judicial precedent set by the Madras High Court in Rayavarapu Sri Devi Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication-Air), Chennai (2025). In that case, concerning the attempted export of foreign currency, the High Court directed that the currency should be released upon payment of a reduced penalty and redemption fine, as currency is a restricted item, not a prohibited one.
